The angst around ipv6 on hackernews that this triggered was pretty revealing and worth thinking about independently. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39316266 In the tik world, people are struggling to deploy ipv6 as even linux kernel 5.7 in routerOS 7.XX still has some needed missing features. It also appears 240 ain´t working there, either. And routerOS is one of the more up to date platforms. if I could use the controversy to talk to why it has been so hard to deploy ipv6 to the edge and how to fix that problem instead rather than triggering people, it would be helpful. ... I was inspired to try a couple traceroutes. It used to be 240 escaped my prior comcast router and wandered around a while; it does not do that anymore. I would be dryly amused if that box was actually running my old OpenWrt bcp38 stuff which blocked 240 for a couple years. My cloud works, my aws stack works, openwrt works. My comcast ipv6 connection is LOVELY - ssh stays nailed up for days. I still reflexively use mosh because it survives me moving from AP to AP. I do wish there was some way I could escape the painful policy debate and just focus on the code-related problems. (my position is basically that all new devices not waste cycles blocking the 240 and 0/8 ranges, and merely it move it from reserved for bezos^H^H^H^H^Hfuture use to unicast and recognize deployed reality). Peering into a murky crystal ball, say, 5 years in the future: Another thing that I worry about is port space exhaustion, which is increasingly a thing on firewalls and CGNs. If I can distract you - in this blog cloudflare attempted to cut the number of ipv4 addresses they use from 2 to 1, after observing some major retry issues. With a nice patch, reducing the problem. https://blog.cloudflare.com/linux-transport-protocol-port-selection-performa... Their problems remain the same if they also just use one ipv6 address (which would be silly, of course). QUIC is going to make this worse. In there, they mention udp-lite, but don´t mention that this protocol has worked for over a decade, and has all this unallocated port space. Firewalling and natting it is easy. Peering further into the soi-distant decades ahead, perhaps we should just allocate all the remaining protocol space in the IP header to a quic native protocol, and start retiring the old ones. /me hides On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 1:21 AM Jay R. Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
I know we had a thread on this last month, but I can't remember what it was titled.
ElReg has done a civilian-level backgrounder on the 240/4 issue, for anyone who wants to read and scoff at it. :-)
https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/09/240_4_ipv4_block_activism/
Cheers, -- jra
-- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
-- 40 years of net history, a couple songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos